Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-vmslq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-26T05:28:26.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Power Concentration, Legitimation Crisis and Penal Severity: A Comparative Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2025

Martin Killias
Martin Killias*
Affiliation:
Université de Lausanne-Dorigny
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The different theoretical perspectives concerning the severity of punishment are presented (Durkheim, Sorokin, Rusche and Kirchheimer) and discussed in the light of a comparative analysis of 55 nations. It indicates that social structural variables as well as the level of socio-economic development and the form of government (democratic or dictatorial) have a very clear impact on the type of punishments used and the law (notably as concerns the death penalty). Conversely, social inequality and unemployment have a strong influence on the level of imprisonment in a country. It seems that political and economic crises cause a rapid increase in the severity of the penal system. The concept of a legitimation crisis of the established order (Weber, Heintz) seems the most suitable interpretation for the variations in penal severity across societies and historical periods.

Résumé

Résumé

Les différentes perspectives théoriques concernant la sévérité des peines sont présentées (Durkheim, Sorokin, Rusche et Kirchheimer) et discutées à la lumière d'une analyse comparative portant sur 55 nations. Il s'avère que les variables structurelles telles que le niveau du développement socio-économique et la forme du gouvernement (démocratique ou dictatoriale) ont une répercussion très nette sur le genre des peines retenues par la loi (notamment en ce qui concerne la peine de mort). En revanche, l'inégalité sociale et le chômage ont une forte influence sur le taux d'emprisonnement d'un pays. Il paraît en outre que les crises politiques et économiques causent une augmentation rapide de la sévérité du système pénal. Le concept de crise de légitimité de l'ordre établi (Weber, Heintz) semble le mieux adapté à l'interprétation des variations de la sévérité du système pénal dans le temps et dans l'espace.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
International Annals of Criminology , Volume 24 , Issue 1-2 , 1986 , pp. 181 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 International Society for Criminology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This paper was written while the author was a visiting scholar at the School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at Albany. He wishes to express his thanks to many teachers and students who gave him unvaluable insights into many aspects of the present topic. Particular thanks are due to Professors Robert H. Hardt for numerous helpful suggestions concerning the analysis, Graeme R. Newman for help with data gathering, and Beverly A. Smith for smoothing the paper's English style. Outside Albany, the author is indebted to Eugene Doleschal, Director, NCCD, for data on incarceration rates and the median time served by prisoners.

References

REFERENCES

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (1979), The Death Penalty, London: Amesty International Publications.Google Scholar
AYDELOTTE, F. (1913), Elizabethan Rogues and Vagabonds, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
BILES, D. (1979), “Crime and the Use of Prisons”, Federal Probation 43 (June): 3943.Google Scholar
BLUMSTEIN, A., and COHEN, J. (1973), “A Theory of the Stability of Punishment”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 64(2): 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLUMSTEIN, A., COHEN, J., and NAGIN, D. (1977), “The Dynamics of a Homeostatic Punishment Process”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 67 (3): 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLUMSTEIN, A., and MOITRA, S. (1979), “An Analysis of the Time Series of the Imprisonment Rate in the United States: A Further Test of the Stability of Punishment Hypothesis”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 70 (3): 376–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BOEHM, E.E. (1940), “Der Schöppenstuhl zu Leipzig und der sächsische Inquisitionsprozess im 1942 Barockzeitalter” (“The Judiciary of Leipzig and Saxonia's Inquisitorial Procedure during the Baroque Era”), Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 59 (1940): 371410 and 620-639; 60 (1941): 155–249.; and 61 (1942): 300403.Google Scholar
BOLLEN, K.A. (1979), “Political Democracy and the Timing of Development”, American Sociological Review 44 (August): 572–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BORNSCHIER, V. (1978), “Einkommensungleichheit innerhalb von Ländern in Komparativer Sicht” (“Income Inequality within Countries in Comparative View”), Revue suisse de sociologie 4 (1): 345.Google Scholar
BOWKER, L.H. (1981), “Crime and the Prisons in the United States: A Time Series Analysis”, Crime & Delinquency 27 (April): 206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BREWER, D., BECKETT, G.E., and HOLT, N. (1981), “Determinate Sentencing in California: The First Year's Experience”, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 18 (July): 200–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRONFENBRENNER, M. (1971), Income Distribution Theory, Chicago: Aldine & Atherton.Google Scholar
CAHALAN, M. (1979), “Trends in Incarceration in the United States since 1880”, Crime & Delinquency 25 (January): 941.Google Scholar
CARPZOVIUS, B. (1652), Practica Nova Imperialis Saxonica rerum criminalium in partes III divisa, Wittenbergae.Google Scholar
CHRISTIE, N. (1968), “Changes in Penal Values”, Scandinavian Studies in Criminology 2: 161–172.Google Scholar
CLINARD, M.B. (1978), Cities with Little Crime: The Case of Switzerland, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DJILAS, M. (1957), The New Class. An Analysis of the Communist System, New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
DOLESCHAL, E. (1979), Median Time Served by Prison Inmates, Hackensack, N J.: NCCD (unpublished).Google Scholar
DURKHEIM, E. (1893/1964), The Division of Labor in Society, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
DURKHEIM, E. (1895/1964), The Rules of Sociological Method, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
DURKHEIM, E. (1900/1969), “Two Laws of Penal Evolution”, University of Cincinnati Law Review 38 (1): 32–60.Google Scholar
GAROFALO, J. (1979), Social Structure and Rates of Imprisonment, Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 15, 1979.Google Scholar
GILLESPIE, R.W. (1980), “Fines as an Alternative to Incarceration: The German Experience”, Federal Probation 44 (December): 20–26.Google Scholar
GREENBERG, D.F. (1977), “The Dynamics of Oscillatory Punishment Process”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 68 (4): 643–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GREENBERG, D.F. (1980), “Penal Sanctions in Poland: A Test of Alternative Models”, Social Problems 28 (December): 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAY, D. (1975), “Property, Authority and the Criminal Law”, Albions Fatal Tree. Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England, ed. by Hay, D. et al., New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
HEINTZ, P. (1972), “Structural and Anomic Tensions”, A Macrosociological Theory of Societal Systems, ed. by P. Heintz, Vol. 1, Berne, Switzerland: Huber.Google Scholar
HINDELANG, M.J., et al. (eds.) (1981), Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1980, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
IGNATIEFF, M. (1978), A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850, New York: Pantheon Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JANKOVIC, I. (1977), “Labor Market and Imprisonment”, Crime and Social Justice 8 (Fall-Winter): 17–31.Google Scholar
KAISER, G. (1976), Kriminologie, 3rd edition, Heidelberg, FRG: C.F. Müller.Google Scholar
KIPNIS, D. (1972), “Does Power Corrupt?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24 (1): 33–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KORNHAUSER, R.R. (1978), Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
LOPEZ-REY, M. (1980), “General Overview of Capital Punishment as a Legal Sanction”, Federal Probation 44 (March): 18–23.Google Scholar
LUHMANN, N. (1975), Macht (Power), Stuttgart, FRG: Enke.Google Scholar
MELOSSI, D., and PAVARINI, M. (1979), Carcere e fabbrica. Alle origini del sistema penitenziario (XVI-XIX secolo), (Prison and Factory. The Origins of the System of Corrections, 16th to 19th centuries), 2nd edition, Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
MONTESQUIEU, Ch.-L. (1748/1977), The Spirit of Laws, ed. by Carrithers, D.W., Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
MULDER, M. (1960), “The Power Variable in Communication Experiments”, Human Relations 13: 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NAGEL, G.W. (1977), “On Behalf of a Moratorium on Prison Construction”, Crime & Delinquency 23 (April): 154–172.Google Scholar
NEWMAN, G.R., and VETERE, E. (1978), World Crime: A Comparative Analysis, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
NIE, Nil., et al. (1975), SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
PEPINSKY, H.E. (1980), Crime Control Strategies, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
QUINNEY, R. (1977), Class, State, and Crime, New York: David McKay REYNOLDSGoogle Scholar
M. and SMOLENSKY, E. (1977), Public Expenditures, Taxes, and the Distribution of Income, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
ROSS, E.A. (1901/1959), Social Control and the Foundations of Sociology, ed. by Borgatta, E.F. and Meyer, H.J., Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
RUSCHE, G. (1933), “Arbeitsmarkt und Strafvollzug: Gedanken zur Soziologie der Strafjustiz” (“The Labor Market and Corrections: On the Sociology of Criminal Justice”), Zeitschrift fur Sozialforschung 2: 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RUSCHE, G., and KIRCHHEIMER, O. (1939), Punishment and Social Structure, New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHNEIDER, H.D. (1978), Sozialpsychologie der Machtbeziehungen (Social Psychology of Power Relationships), Stuttgart, FRG: Enke.Google Scholar
SHELLEY, L.I. (1981), Crime and Modernization. The Impact of Industrialization and Urbanization on Crime, Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
SOROKIN, P.A. (1937/1962), Social and Cultural Dynamics, vol. 2: Fluctuation of Systems of Truth, Ethics, and Law, New York: Bedminster Press.Google Scholar
STEINERT, H., and TREIBER, H. (1978), “Versuch, die These von der strafrechtlichen Ausrottungspolitik im Spatmittelalter ‘auszurotten‘” (Attempt to Exterminate the Theory of Crime Extermination Policy during the Late Middle-Ages“), Kriminologisches Journal 10 (2): 81–106.Google Scholar
TAYLOR, I. (1980), “The Law and Order Issue in the British General Election and the Canadian Federal Election of 1979: Crime, Populism, and the State, Canadian Journal of Sociology 5 (3): 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UDY, S. (1965), “Dynamic Inferences from Static Data”, American Journal of Sociology 70: 625–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WALLSTER, E., et al. (1973), “New Directions in Equity Research”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 25 (2): 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WEBER, M. (1925/1954), Max Weber on Law in “Economy and Society”, ed. by Rheinstein, M., New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
WEEDE, E. (1981), “Militar, Multis und Wirtschaft” (“Military, MNC, and Economy”), Revue suisse de sociologie 7(1): 113–127.Google Scholar
WILKINS, L.T. (1965), Social Deviance, Englewood Cliffs, N J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
WILKINS, L.T. (1974), “Directions for Corrections”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 118: 235–247.Google Scholar
WILKINS, L.T. (1976), “Equity and Republican Justice”, Annals of the AAPSS, 423:152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YEAGER, M.G. (1979), “Unemployment and Imprisonment”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 70 (4): 586–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar